Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo

Killing Civilians: Obama’s Drone War in Pakistan


  • Please log in to reply
51 replies to this topic

#1 Grapefruits

Grapefruits

    Fruit

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,605 posts
  • Joined: 18-March 08

Posted 15 December 2012 - 01:21 PM

Killing Civilians: Obama’s Drone War in Pakistan

Illegal, Unethical, Violating Sovereignty and the UN Charter

By Sajjad Shaukat
Global Research, December 14, 2012

Posted Image
In his second term, it was expected that the U.S. President Barack Obama would reassess America’s controversial foreign policy, especially by ceasing CIA-operated drone attacks on Pakistan. But these aerial strikes continue on Pak tribal areas.

It is worth mentioning that Director General of Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) Lt. Gen. Zaheerul Islam, who visited America in August, 2012, emphatically told the then-CIA Director David Petraeus that predator strikes are a violation of Pakistan’s sovereignty that must be stopped. He pointed out that these strikes are proving counterproductive, giving a greater incentive to fundamentalist and extremist elements in Pakistan and are increasing anti-U.S. sentiments among the people.

While addressing the UN General Assembly on September 25, President Asif Ali Zardari said, “Drone strikes and civilian casualties on our territory add to the complexity of our battle for hearts and minds through this epic struggle” against terrorism.

Besides, after her meeting with U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on September 21 in Washington, Pakistan’s Foreign Minister Hina Rabbani Khar stated that they had discussions on drones, saying, “These are illegal and counterproductive.” She explained that when “a U.S. drone carries out a strike, Pakistani officials have to hear remarks that this is a U.S. war.” Khar elaborated that in 352 terrorist attacks in Pakistan, many of those killed were Pakistanis as opposed to foreigners.

While justifying these air strikes by spy planes, the counterterrorism advisor to Obama, John Brennan, and Defense Minister Leon Panetta have defended these attacks on Pakistan’s tribal areas under the pretext of North Waziristan-based Haqqani militants whom they have blamed for several assaults on American and NATO bases in Afghanistan. On the other hand, U.S.-led coalition forces have failed in stopping incursions of heavily-armed insurgents in Pakistan from thye Afghan side who have killed more than 100 personnel of Pakistan’s security forces in the last two years while targeting the infrastructure of the area. In fact, the U.S. seeks to make North Waziristan a scapegoat for NATO’s defeat in Afghanistan by continuing the illegal mass murder of innocent people through Predator strikes.

However, setting aside parliamentary resolutions, rallies and processions of Pakistan’s political and religious parties against drone attacks, and ignoring the new rapprochement between Islamabad and Washington, without bothering about any internal backlash, these strikes keep on going on in the FATA.

In fact, such American duplicity contains a number of covert designs. The fresh wave of strikes by pilotless aircraft has thwarted the offer of militants and the Pakistani government for peace talks. And the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) has as a result accelerated subversive activities in the country. Now, the U.S. seeks to incite the Haqqani network as over the past 14 months, as most of these strikes have targeted North Waziristan. So, these aerial attacks are provoking the tribal people against Pakistan’s security forces and increasing the recruitment of insurgents. Another aim of these strikes is to create a rift between Pakistan’s armed forces on one side and the political and religious parties including the general masses on the other. Besides, Pakistan is the only nuclear country in the Islamic world. Hence, the U.S., India and Israel are determined to weaken it. The drone campaign is also part of this game.

The strikes by the unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) which have continued in Pakistan’s tribal areas since 2004 have intensified during the Obama era. In one of the major drone attacks more than 40 civilians and policemen were killed on March 18, 2011 in the Datta Khel area of North Waziristan. In the past few months, these unmanned aircraft killed more than 100 people in North Waziristan.

As regards civilian casualties, on August 11, 2011 a report of the Bureau of Investigative Journalism said, “The Guardian published some of the pictures, we have obtained…as many as 168 children have been killed in drone strikes in Pakistan during the past seven years.” While rejecting the CIA’s false claim, the report disclosed, “It is a bleak view: more people killed than previously thought.”

Besides, a report of the New America Foundation revealed that President Obama has “authorised 193 drone strikes in Pakistan, more than four times the number of attacks that President Bush authorised during his two terms.” The report explained, “When the U.S. drones attack Pakistan’s tribal areas, it is not just the 10, or 50, innocent civilians they kill, these killings provide reason to youth for joining terrorist groups waging war against the U.S. and of course Pakistan…while killing 10 militants, the U.S. has murdered more than 1,400 Pakistanis not involved in any terrorist activities. Could it not be inferred that it gave birth to another 1,400 militants?”

The latest report, “Living Under Drones,” prepared by experts from the Stanford Law School and the New York University School of Law, disclosed that the U.S. campaign of drone “strikes in Pakistan’s northwestern tribal belt is terrorising civilians 24 hours a day and breeding bitter anti-American sentiment. [They] have killed thousands of people…even stopping their children going to school for fear of being targeted.” Based on research, the report urged Washington to rethink its drone strategy, arguing it was counterproductive and undermined international law.

Nevertheless, details collected by Pakistani journalists show that civilian casualties through drone strikes are higher as indicated [even] by U.S. officials. In the last four years, more than 800 innocent civilians and only 22 Al-Qaeda commanders have been killed by these aerial attacks.

Particularly during his first presidential campaign, Barack Obama pledged to reverse the excesses of the Bush era in relation to terrorism. He also promised to reformulate a counterterrorism policy in accordance with the legal and moral values of the U.S. Contrary to his assertions, Obama followed Bush’s approach to counterterrorism in its worst form by expanding and accelerating the Predator strikes.

In this respect, The New York Time on May 26, 2011, in an article which was written with the assistance of several counterterrorism advisers of the administration, revealed, “President Obama has become personally involved in the process” and “has normalised extrajudicial killings from the Oval Office, taking advantage of America’s temporary advantage in drone technology. Without the scrutiny of the legislature and the courts, and outside the public eye, Obama is authorising murder on a weekly basis.”

Notably, the American constitution explicitly grants the right to declare war to the Congress so as to restrain the president from chasing enemies around the world, based solely on his authority as commander-in-chief, by waging a secret war.
Instead of capturing militants alive and to avoid giving the right of due process of law to them in a court, President Obama has openly been acting upon a ruthless policy of targeted killings by supervising the CIA-controlled drone warfare.

Notably, President Obama has broken all the records for human rights violations by extrajudicial killings of innocent people through CIA-operated unmanned aircraft, which are part of his so-called counterterrorism operations in Somalia, Yemen, etc. in general and Pakistan in particular, while the U.S. claims to be the protector of human rights not only inside the country but all over the world.

On the one hand, top U.S. officials, particularly Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, have repeatedly said that America needs Pakistan’s help not only for the peace process with the militants, but also for stability in Afghanistan in the post-2014 scenario; but on the other, U.S. spy planes in Pakistan’s tribal regions are undermining international efforts for stability both in Afghanistan and Pakistan, including a peace dialogue with the Afghan militants.

Meanwhile, Ben Emmerson, UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights and Counter-Terrorism, said on August 16 of this year that it was time for “the U.S. to open itself up to scrutiny as to the legality of such attacks…each strike is visually recorded and videos could be passed to independent assessors.” Recently, former U.S. presidents Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton have also opposed Obama’s faulty strategy of drone strikes.

Nonetheless, these strikes are illegal, unethical and a violation of Pakistan’s sovereignty as well as the UN Charter. But U.S. warrior President Obama remains intransigent in continuing his secret war through drone attacks.

Sajjad Shaukat writes on international affairs and is author of the book US vs Islamic Militants, Invisible Balance of Power: Dangerous Shift in International Relations

Edited by zero-ONE-three, 15 December 2012 - 01:22 PM.

  • 0

2qnqykg.jpg


#2 MoneypuckOverlord

MoneypuckOverlord

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,473 posts
  • Joined: 24-September 09

Posted 15 December 2012 - 01:30 PM

fail. Never liked American foreign polices. Never really agreed with these guys. The new axis of evil is the United States of America. Anyways, what they are doing, is their own undoing in the end. Karma will hit this country, just like how bad they are in debt.
  • 0

Players Nikolaj Ehlers have been compared too by the fan base of the Vancouver Canucks.

 

1 Pavel Bure

2 Markus Naslund

3 Nathan Mackkinon

4 Jonathan Drouin.

5 Jonathan Tavares

 

http://bleacherrepor...d-top-prospects

combine results.  Ehlers 5'11 162 lbs of solid rock.  


#3 Special Ed

Special Ed

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,552 posts
  • Joined: 09-February 09

Posted 15 December 2012 - 01:59 PM

Can't deny the drones effectiveness though.

-

Messages recovered from Osama bin Laden's home after his death in 2011, including one from then al Qaeda No. 3, Atiyah Abd al-Rahman reportedly, according to the Agence France-Presse and the Washington Post, expressed frustration with the drone strikes in Pakistan. According to an unnamed U.S. Government official, in his message al-Rahman complained that drone-launched missiles were killing al Qaeda operatives faster than they could be replaced.[86][87][88]

In June and July 2011, law enforcement authorities found messages on al Qaeda-linked websites calling for attacks against executives of drone aircraft manufacturer AeroVironment. Law enforcement believed that the messages were in response to calls for action against Americans by Adam Yahiye Gadahn.[89]

-

Personally I would have to know more details before I pass judgement. I have read that Pakistan secretly supports the strikes. I feel for any innocent civilians, but some of these civilians get caught up when their family member comes home after committing bombings and was tracked by intelligence.

  • 0

If you like looking at statistics to determine who's better, you're just a casual fan.

2.41 season GAA isn't very impressive. Let's not get into playoffs and his SV%.

Cory Schneider is the next Patrick Roy.


#4 Buddhas Hand

Buddhas Hand

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,226 posts
  • Joined: 19-December 11

Posted 15 December 2012 - 02:29 PM

An excerpt from the , living under drones report from the stanford law school
The number of “high-level” targets
killed as a percentage of total
casualties is extremely low—estimated
at just 2%.

You have a different definition of the word effective than i do Ed
  • 0

The Real war is not between the east and the west. The real war is between intelligent and stupid people.

Marjane Satrapi

tony-abbott-and-stephen-harper-custom-da

That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all the lessons that history has to teach.

Aldous Huxley.


#5 Special Ed

Special Ed

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,552 posts
  • Joined: 09-February 09

Posted 15 December 2012 - 02:49 PM

An excerpt from the , living under drones report from the stanford law school
The number of “high-level” targets
killed as a percentage of total
casualties is extremely low—estimated
at just 2%.

You have a different definition of the word effective than i do Ed


When the leaders of Al-Qaeda complain about their jihadists being killed 'faster than they can recruit', that says a lot to me.

Edited by Special Ed, 15 December 2012 - 02:50 PM.

  • 0

If you like looking at statistics to determine who's better, you're just a casual fan.

2.41 season GAA isn't very impressive. Let's not get into playoffs and his SV%.

Cory Schneider is the next Patrick Roy.


#6 Dral

Dral

    Puts the Dr in Drunk

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,631 posts
  • Joined: 30-July 12

Posted 15 December 2012 - 02:56 PM

So this is Obama's war now?

Or is the title indicating that if someone else was in charge, they wouldn't use Drones... and instead would have more American troops on the ground fighting... and those troops would never kill civilians?

The biggest LoL of this article was these strikes are prevent militants and the government from making deals. Not likely - if anything the americans have helped in this regard.



Less of two evils right here.
  • 0

Fruits?

Lord Peaches' gut is telling him that the drunken fool, aka Dral, is 100% mafia.

 MVP?

Dral is 100% mafia or I will masteb_ _ _ _ a cow and like it

GOATis?

Vig kill dral he never talks like this when he's not mafia.

 


#7 Buddhas Hand

Buddhas Hand

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,226 posts
  • Joined: 19-December 11

Posted 15 December 2012 - 02:57 PM

When the leaders of Al-Qaeda complain about their jihadists being killed 'faster than they can recruit', that says a lot to me.


You validate and rationalise murder any way you want Ed ,murdering 98 innocent people for every 2 "guilty" people you kill is not "effective".
In fact it is considered a crime against humanity to kill innocent women and children .

As i have stated on these forums before , PLEASE STOP THESE DRONE STRIKES PRESIDENT OBAMA .


Ed if you really want to know more here is a link to the stanford law school report , living under drones

livingunderdrones.org

Edited by The Ratiocinator, 15 December 2012 - 03:01 PM.

  • 0

The Real war is not between the east and the west. The real war is between intelligent and stupid people.

Marjane Satrapi

tony-abbott-and-stephen-harper-custom-da

That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all the lessons that history has to teach.

Aldous Huxley.


#8 Dral

Dral

    Puts the Dr in Drunk

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,631 posts
  • Joined: 30-July 12

Posted 15 December 2012 - 02:58 PM

An excerpt from the , living under drones report from the stanford law school
The number of “high-level” targets
killed as a percentage of total
casualties is extremely low—estimated
at just 2%.

You have a different definition of the word effective than i do Ed


1 in 50 killed are high lvl targets? Hmmm, I wonder if napalm or nukes have this kind of success rate?
  • 0

Fruits?

Lord Peaches' gut is telling him that the drunken fool, aka Dral, is 100% mafia.

 MVP?

Dral is 100% mafia or I will masteb_ _ _ _ a cow and like it

GOATis?

Vig kill dral he never talks like this when he's not mafia.

 


#9 Mr. Ambien

Mr. Ambien

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,028 posts
  • Joined: 07-April 03

Posted 15 December 2012 - 02:59 PM

This is all Bush's fault.
  • 1

#10 Dral

Dral

    Puts the Dr in Drunk

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,631 posts
  • Joined: 30-July 12

Posted 15 December 2012 - 03:01 PM

You validate and rationalise murder any way you want Ed ,murdering 98 innocent people for every 2 "guilty" people you kill is not "effective".
In fact it is considered a crime against humanity to kill innocent women and children .

As i have stated on these forums before , PLEASE STOP THESE DRONE STRIKES PRESIDENT OBAMA .


I'm pretty sure your math is wrong here.... Just because they aren't high lvl targets doesn't mean they are innocent....
  • 0

Fruits?

Lord Peaches' gut is telling him that the drunken fool, aka Dral, is 100% mafia.

 MVP?

Dral is 100% mafia or I will masteb_ _ _ _ a cow and like it

GOATis?

Vig kill dral he never talks like this when he's not mafia.

 


#11 Scott Hartnell's Mane

Scott Hartnell's Mane

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,211 posts
  • Joined: 14-December 12

Posted 15 December 2012 - 03:01 PM

This is all Bush's fault.


LOL took the words right out of my mouth...
  • 0
Posted Image

Well I tell you what Heretic..if Tim Tebow becomes Terry Bradshaw I will shave off all my hair, convert to Christianity, go into the ministry and become a preacher.


#12 Buddhas Hand

Buddhas Hand

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,226 posts
  • Joined: 19-December 11

Posted 15 December 2012 - 03:08 PM

1 in 50 killed are high lvl targets? Hmmm, I wonder if napalm or nukes have this kind of success rate?


I wonder how you would feel seeing your loved one's killed for no resason , would you still be comparing drones to napalm and nukes?

Edited by The Ratiocinator, 15 December 2012 - 03:09 PM.

  • 0

The Real war is not between the east and the west. The real war is between intelligent and stupid people.

Marjane Satrapi

tony-abbott-and-stephen-harper-custom-da

That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all the lessons that history has to teach.

Aldous Huxley.


#13 Special Ed

Special Ed

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,552 posts
  • Joined: 09-February 09

Posted 15 December 2012 - 03:15 PM

You validate and rationalise murder any way you want Ed ,murdering 98 innocent people for every 2 "guilty" people you kill is not "effective".
In fact it is considered a crime against humanity to kill innocent women and children .

As i have stated on these forums before , PLEASE STOP THESE DRONE STRIKES PRESIDENT OBAMA .


Ed if you really want to know more here is a link to the stanford law school report , living under drones

livingunderdrones.org


I will check it out ratio and try to stay open about this.
  • 0

If you like looking at statistics to determine who's better, you're just a casual fan.

2.41 season GAA isn't very impressive. Let's not get into playoffs and his SV%.

Cory Schneider is the next Patrick Roy.


#14 Dral

Dral

    Puts the Dr in Drunk

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,631 posts
  • Joined: 30-July 12

Posted 15 December 2012 - 03:16 PM

I wonder how you would feel seeing your loved one's killed for no resason , would you still be comparing drones to napalm and nukes?


I'm pretty sure drones have a lower civilian casaulty rate then napalm and nukes.... and thats my point. I'm also pretty sure they are better then using 19 year old high-school drop outs as soldiers.

1 in 50 killed being HIGH VALUE TARGETS (different from "not innocent civilian") is pretty good, Like I said before, I don't think other methods have that kind of success rate.
  • 0

Fruits?

Lord Peaches' gut is telling him that the drunken fool, aka Dral, is 100% mafia.

 MVP?

Dral is 100% mafia or I will masteb_ _ _ _ a cow and like it

GOATis?

Vig kill dral he never talks like this when he's not mafia.

 


#15 Buddhas Hand

Buddhas Hand

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,226 posts
  • Joined: 19-December 11

Posted 15 December 2012 - 03:22 PM

I'm pretty sure drones have a lower civilian casaulty rate then napalm and nukes.... and thats my point. I'm also pretty sure they are better then using 19 year old high-school drop outs as soldiers.

1 in 50 killed being HIGH VALUE TARGETS (different from "not innocent civilian") is pretty good, Like I said before, I don't think other methods have that kind of success rate.


So you would be ok with your family being murdered as long as a terrorist is killed ?
  • 0

The Real war is not between the east and the west. The real war is between intelligent and stupid people.

Marjane Satrapi

tony-abbott-and-stephen-harper-custom-da

That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all the lessons that history has to teach.

Aldous Huxley.


#16 Dral

Dral

    Puts the Dr in Drunk

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,631 posts
  • Joined: 30-July 12

Posted 15 December 2012 - 03:36 PM

So you would be ok with your family being murdered as long as a terrorist is killed ?


What kind of rediculous question is that? Of course not.

Is your suggestion then, that the US should do nothing? Simply ignore the middle east until the next 9/11? If I thought it likely that the Islamic extremists would put down their guns and bombs and stop fighting the west if the US said "Truce?" then absolutely, 100% the US would be the bad guys here.

Unfortunately, thats not the case. And when the US gets information that at a certain location is a Taliban training camp, or a bomb maker, or a leader of a terrorist training cell, or any high valued target, I am not going to begrudge them sending in a drone strike. And lets be honest, a drone strike is very small, and very very precise in terms of the destruction it does compared to i) Napalm, ii) Nukes (which opens up a whole other can of worms) and iii) Full on invasion with ground troops.

My point is... 1 - out of all the possible options... drones are actually the most humane, economical and feasible reaction to whats going on now. and 2 - are we really trying to blame Obama on this situation?



I would rather my family doesn't get killed by anyone. I would rather the entire world decide to stop killing anyone, and doing anything bad what-so-ever. Unfortunately, I don't decide how the rest of the world will act. And considering the actions of the rest of the world, I don't think complaining Obama is using drones in the middle east is a very productive solution to anything but exercising our rhetoric skills.
  • 1

Fruits?

Lord Peaches' gut is telling him that the drunken fool, aka Dral, is 100% mafia.

 MVP?

Dral is 100% mafia or I will masteb_ _ _ _ a cow and like it

GOATis?

Vig kill dral he never talks like this when he's not mafia.

 


#17 Buddhas Hand

Buddhas Hand

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,226 posts
  • Joined: 19-December 11

Posted 15 December 2012 - 03:47 PM

What kind of rediculous question is that? Of course not.

Is your suggestion then, that the US should do nothing? Simply ignore the middle east until the next 9/11? If I thought it likely that the Islamic extremists would put down their guns and bombs and stop fighting the west if the US said "Truce?" then absolutely, 100% the US would be the bad guys here.

Unfortunately, thats not the case. And when the US gets information that at a certain location is a Taliban training camp, or a bomb maker, or a leader of a terrorist training cell, or any high valued target, I am not going to begrudge them sending in a drone strike. And lets be honest, a drone strike is very small, and very very precise in terms of the destruction it does compared to i) Napalm, ii) Nukes (which opens up a whole other can of worms) and iii) Full on invasion with ground troops.

My point is... 1 - out of all the possible options... drones are actually the most humane, economical and feasible reaction to whats going on now. and 2 - are we really trying to blame Obama on this situation?



I would rather my family doesn't get killed by anyone. I would rather the entire world decide to stop killing anyone, and doing anything bad what-so-ever. Unfortunately, I don't decide how the rest of the world will act. And considering the actions of the rest of the world, I don't think complaining Obama is using drones in the middle east is a very productive solution to anything but exercising our rhetoric skills.


What I believe is that the end does not justify the means, the US has a criminal justice system , where a person is brought to trial and proven innocent or guilty , not summarily executed because he is thought to be guilty , and at the same time innocent people are killed in that process.

When Terrorists 'Killed' In Drone Strikes Aren't Really DeadDec 11, 2012



Posted Image

PARIS -- Is "killed by a drone strike" the new "alive and well"? If you pay close enough attention, it makes you wonder what's really going on.
Here's how this charade usually goes: One or more major news organizations runs a story about some Middle Eastern terrorist being killed in a drone strike, usually in Pakistan. The reports, typically generated by some murky Pakistani intelligence source -- are neither confirmed nor denied by U.S. intelligence. The boilerplate response is instead something like, "We can only confirm they were in the area." It's kind of like asking, "Did you sleep with my wife?" and getting back, "I cannot confirm or deny except to say that we were in the same bed."
This week, senior al-Qaeda leader Abu Zaid al-Kuwaiti was reported to have been killed by a drone in northern Pakistan. American intelligence officials have yet to confirm or deny, but that hasn't stopped this from becoming worldwide news and accepted as fact. After all, in the event that the story isn't actually true, will anyone remember the retraction -- or even demand one? Al-Kuwaiti sure won't. He'll probably be grateful to finally get some peace and quiet.
Throughout history, people have paid big bucks for the privilege of dropping off the face of the earth, often unsuccessfully. Little did they know that all they had to do was turn to terrorism and end up on America's radar as a major target.
There is no question that these stories are becoming part of an interesting, if not suspicious, pattern.
In September 2010, U.S.S. Cole bombing suspect Fahd Mohammed Ahmed al-Quso was reported to have been killed by a drone. U.S. intelligence wouldn't confirm or deny the report of his death beyond saying that he was in the drone-flooded area of Northern Pakistan. You'd think it would be their job to find these things out. He met his second "death" by drone on May 6, 2012. Any chances of a third? Is this man a cat?
In October 2010, an Osama bin Laden "ambassador," Atiyah Abd al-Rahman, was reported to have "killed" by a drone. But again, U.S. intelligence wouldn't confirm or deny anything beyond saying that he was hanging out in northern Pakistan. It was later reported that he was killed yet again by a drone on August 22, 2011.
There must be a stellar vacation-package deal for members of Middle Eastern terrorist groups to vacation in northern Pakistan if they're willing to risk all the drones and repeated deaths.
High-ranking al-Qaeda member Saeed al-Shehri is yet another terrorist who has been "killed" at least twice to date in separate air raids: once as reported by ABC News in December 2009, and yet again this past September, as reported by the Associated Press.
So do these guys really end up dead at some point? Or does the mere announcement of their questionable deaths serve to conveniently remove them from the radar? In at least one other case, it turns out that a supposedly "dead" terrorist is still at large enough to still be included on the FBI's Most Wanted Terrorists list.
Mohammed Ali Hamadi is the Hezbollah terrorist responsible for the 1985 hijacking of TWA Flight 847 during which Navy diver Robert Stethem was tortured, killed and tossed out onto the tarmac. Hamadi still remains on the FBI's Most Wanted Terrorists list despite having been reported killed by a drone in northern Pakistan in 2010.
Does the FBI really care to apprehend this fugitive? Because there have been sightings of him recently reported here in the North of France. And why isn't the agency's sophisticated high-tech composite photograph included on the FBI website? Or better yet, his latest-available photo from 2008, which is markedly different from those the FBI has posted?
A private investigation suggests that Hamadi was operating a vehicle import/export business between Belgium and Lebanon until his "death." His cell phone number from that period is available, should the FBI wish to actually investigate.
What's preventing the FBI from doing its job? Certainly not the extradition treaty between the U.S. and France, which allows for extradition upon executive approval. And apparently, being an FBI Most Wanted fugitive doesn't mean inclusion in the Interpol database. How about fixing that?
And if the FBI no longer cares that Hamadi remains at large, then why keep him on the Most Wanted list? Pick a lane.
When U.S. intelligence isn't busy fake-killing terrorists, it may want to try apprehending them and bringing them to justice. Just a thought.

Edited by The Ratiocinator, 15 December 2012 - 03:59 PM.

  • 3

The Real war is not between the east and the west. The real war is between intelligent and stupid people.

Marjane Satrapi

tony-abbott-and-stephen-harper-custom-da

That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all the lessons that history has to teach.

Aldous Huxley.


#18 DarthNinja

DarthNinja

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,782 posts
  • Joined: 18-November 08

Posted 15 December 2012 - 04:39 PM

When the leaders of Al-Qaeda complain about their jihadists being killed 'faster than they can recruit', that says a lot to me.


How many conversations have you had with Al-Qaeda leaders so as to hear their complaints?

By the way Ed, if you have time, check out the 3-part BBC documentary called 'The Power of Nightmares'. It is most definitely nothing more than a surface scratcher but never the less it is quite good.

And here is another perspective:

'US drone attacks are counter-productive and terrorise civilians'
CIA drone attacks are counter-productive as they kill civilians and rescue workers and increase recruitment by militant groups, a new report concludes.

Civilians are being "terrorised" 24 hours a day by CIA drone attacks that target mainly low-level militants in north-west Pakistan, a report by Stanford and New York Universities says.
It claims that follow-up strikes are also killing rescuers who set out to treat the injured.

The report, made up of interviews with victims, witnesses and experts, pins blame on US President Barack Obama for the recent increase in "signature strikes" which target groups selected through "pattern of life analysis" and which have resulted in large, innocent groups attending weddings and funerals being killed.

It states: "US drones hover 24 hours a day over communities in north-west Pakistan, striking homes, vehicles, and public spaces without warning.

"Their presence terrorises men, women, and children, giving rise to anxiety and psychological trauma among civilian communities. Those living under drones have to face the constant worry that a deadly strike may be fired at any moment, and the knowledge that they are powerless to protect themselves.


"These fears have affected behaviour. The US practice of striking one area multiple times, and evidence that it has killed rescuers, makes both community members and humanitarian workers afraid or unwilling to assist injured victims."

The report entitled Living Under Drones calls into question the effectiveness of drone attacks as a weapon against terrorism in Pakistan, stating that it is overplayed by the US government.

It says: "The dominant narrative about the use of drones in Pakistan is of a surgically precise and effective tool that makes the US safer by enabling 'targeted killings' of terrorists, with minimal downsides or collateral impacts. This narrative is false."

Drone attacks are thought to have killed hundreds of militants in Yemen and Afghanistan as well as Pakistan, including Senior al-Qaeda and Taliban leaders.

But the report highlights the difficulty in obtaining accurate data on casualties "because of US efforts to shield the drone programme from democratic accountability, compounded by obstacles to independent investigation of strikes in North Waziristan".

The "best available information", they say, is that between 2,562 and 3,325 people have been killed in Pakistan between June 2004 and mid-September this year – of whom between 474 and 881 were civilians, including 176 children. The figures have been assembled by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, which estimated that a further 1,300 individuals were injured in drone strikes over that period.

Hours before the report was released, another drone strike hit the Mir Ali area of North Waziristan, killing eight fighters, most of them Uzbeks and Tajiks, a spokesman for the Pakistani Taliban told the BBC. Pakistani intelligence officials earlier said five had been killed.

http://www.telegraph...-civilians.html


  • 0

**RETIRED...**

"Have not those who disbelieve known that the heavens & the earth were joined together as one united piece, then We (Allah) parted them? And We have made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe?" (Qur'an 21:30)

11477626583_2368927097.jpg     49997_b70e6ae14ce1652fa11bd1dda624afd1.g   7649118508_ce3e8a74a1_o.jpg

"Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as 'internationalists' and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure--one world, if you will. If that's the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.” (David Rockefeller)


#19 DarthNinja

DarthNinja

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,782 posts
  • Joined: 18-November 08

Posted 15 December 2012 - 04:40 PM

What I believe is that the end does not justify the means, the US has a criminal justice system , where a person is brought to trial and proven innocent or guilty , not summarily executed because he is thought to be guilty , and at the same time innocent people are killed in that process.

When Terrorists 'Killed' In Drone Strikes Aren't Really Dead

Dec 11, 2012



Posted Image

PARIS -- Is "killed by a drone strike" the new "alive and well"? If you pay close enough attention, it makes you wonder what's really going on.
Here's how this charade usually goes: One or more major news organizations runs a story about some Middle Eastern terrorist being killed in a drone strike, usually in Pakistan. The reports, typically generated by some murky Pakistani intelligence source -- are neither confirmed nor denied by U.S. intelligence. The boilerplate response is instead something like, "We can only confirm they were in the area." It's kind of like asking, "Did you sleep with my wife?" and getting back, "I cannot confirm or deny except to say that we were in the same bed."
This week, senior al-Qaeda leader Abu Zaid al-Kuwaiti was reported to have been killed by a drone in northern Pakistan. American intelligence officials have yet to confirm or deny, but that hasn't stopped this from becoming worldwide news and accepted as fact. After all, in the event that the story isn't actually true, will anyone remember the retraction -- or even demand one? Al-Kuwaiti sure won't. He'll probably be grateful to finally get some peace and quiet.
Throughout history, people have paid big bucks for the privilege of dropping off the face of the earth, often unsuccessfully. Little did they know that all they had to do was turn to terrorism and end up on America's radar as a major target.
There is no question that these stories are becoming part of an interesting, if not suspicious, pattern.
In September 2010, U.S.S. Cole bombing suspect Fahd Mohammed Ahmed al-Quso was reported to have been killed by a drone. U.S. intelligence wouldn't confirm or deny the report of his death beyond saying that he was in the drone-flooded area of Northern Pakistan. You'd think it would be their job to find these things out. He met his second "death" by drone on May 6, 2012. Any chances of a third? Is this man a cat?
In October 2010, an Osama bin Laden "ambassador," Atiyah Abd al-Rahman, was reported to have "killed" by a drone. But again, U.S. intelligence wouldn't confirm or deny anything beyond saying that he was hanging out in northern Pakistan. It was later reported that he was killed yet again by a drone on August 22, 2011.
There must be a stellar vacation-package deal for members of Middle Eastern terrorist groups to vacation in northern Pakistan if they're willing to risk all the drones and repeated deaths.
High-ranking al-Qaeda member Saeed al-Shehri is yet another terrorist who has been "killed" at least twice to date in separate air raids: once as reported by ABC News in December 2009, and yet again this past September, as reported by the Associated Press.
So do these guys really end up dead at some point? Or does the mere announcement of their questionable deaths serve to conveniently remove them from the radar? In at least one other case, it turns out that a supposedly "dead" terrorist is still at large enough to still be included on the FBI's Most Wanted Terrorists list.
Mohammed Ali Hamadi is the Hezbollah terrorist responsible for the 1985 hijacking of TWA Flight 847 during which Navy diver Robert Stethem was tortured, killed and tossed out onto the tarmac. Hamadi still remains on the FBI's Most Wanted Terrorists list despite having been reported killed by a drone in northern Pakistan in 2010.
Does the FBI really care to apprehend this fugitive? Because there have been sightings of him recently reported here in the North of France. And why isn't the agency's sophisticated high-tech composite photograph included on the FBI website? Or better yet, his latest-available photo from 2008, which is markedly different from those the FBI has posted?
A private investigation suggests that Hamadi was operating a vehicle import/export business between Belgium and Lebanon until his "death." His cell phone number from that period is available, should the FBI wish to actually investigate.
What's preventing the FBI from doing its job? Certainly not the extradition treaty between the U.S. and France, which allows for extradition upon executive approval. And apparently, being an FBI Most Wanted fugitive doesn't mean inclusion in the Interpol database. How about fixing that?
And if the FBI no longer cares that Hamadi remains at large, then why keep him on the Most Wanted list? Pick a lane.
When U.S. intelligence isn't busy fake-killing terrorists, it may want to try apprehending them and bringing them to justice. Just a thought.


Innocent until proven dead.
  • 1

**RETIRED...**

"Have not those who disbelieve known that the heavens & the earth were joined together as one united piece, then We (Allah) parted them? And We have made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe?" (Qur'an 21:30)

11477626583_2368927097.jpg     49997_b70e6ae14ce1652fa11bd1dda624afd1.g   7649118508_ce3e8a74a1_o.jpg

"Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as 'internationalists' and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure--one world, if you will. If that's the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.” (David Rockefeller)


#20 TOMapleLaughs

TOMapleLaughs

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32,526 posts
  • Joined: 19-September 05

Posted 15 December 2012 - 05:09 PM

"If he runs, he's VC. If he doesn't run, he's a well-disciplined VC. Hahaha. War is hell." - Full Metal Jacket


Using drones to kill terrorists strategically is brilliant, imo. It eliminates home team casualties, doesn't let 'feelings' and second-guessing get in the way, and makes the overall sensation of the kill be as it would be in a video game.

The downside is that in the future, terrorists aren't going away anytime soon and they may be using drones on us. Meh. That's just a reason to exterminate as many of those ???? as we can now.

Referring to my Full Metal Jacket quote, the difference between civillian and terrorist in that region during a time of war is almost nil. The reason no accurate count of civillians killed can be obtained is because a civilian is just another terrorist, current or future. At least according to those doing all the killing with drones.

In any case, the drones strikes are supported by Pakistan. So why should we have a problem with them if they don't?
  • 0
Posted Image

#21 Dral

Dral

    Puts the Dr in Drunk

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,631 posts
  • Joined: 30-July 12

Posted 15 December 2012 - 05:16 PM

What I believe is that the end does not justify the means, the US has a criminal justice system , where a person is brought to trial and proven innocent or guilty , not summarily executed because he is thought to be guilty , and at the same time innocent people are killed in that process.

When Terrorists 'Killed' In Drone Strikes Aren't Really Dead

Dec 11, 2012



Posted Image

PARIS -- Is "killed by a drone strike" the new "alive and well"? If you pay close enough attention, it makes you wonder what's really going on.
Here's how this charade usually goes: One or more major news organizations runs a story about some Middle Eastern terrorist being killed in a drone strike, usually in Pakistan. The reports, typically generated by some murky Pakistani intelligence source -- are neither confirmed nor denied by U.S. intelligence. The boilerplate response is instead something like, "We can only confirm they were in the area." It's kind of like asking, "Did you sleep with my wife?" and getting back, "I cannot confirm or deny except to say that we were in the same bed."
This week, senior al-Qaeda leader Abu Zaid al-Kuwaiti was reported to have been killed by a drone in northern Pakistan. American intelligence officials have yet to confirm or deny, but that hasn't stopped this from becoming worldwide news and accepted as fact. After all, in the event that the story isn't actually true, will anyone remember the retraction -- or even demand one? Al-Kuwaiti sure won't. He'll probably be grateful to finally get some peace and quiet.
Throughout history, people have paid big bucks for the privilege of dropping off the face of the earth, often unsuccessfully. Little did they know that all they had to do was turn to terrorism and end up on America's radar as a major target.
There is no question that these stories are becoming part of an interesting, if not suspicious, pattern.
In September 2010, U.S.S. Cole bombing suspect Fahd Mohammed Ahmed al-Quso was reported to have been killed by a drone. U.S. intelligence wouldn't confirm or deny the report of his death beyond saying that he was in the drone-flooded area of Northern Pakistan. You'd think it would be their job to find these things out. He met his second "death" by drone on May 6, 2012. Any chances of a third? Is this man a cat?
In October 2010, an Osama bin Laden "ambassador," Atiyah Abd al-Rahman, was reported to have "killed" by a drone. But again, U.S. intelligence wouldn't confirm or deny anything beyond saying that he was hanging out in northern Pakistan. It was later reported that he was killed yet again by a drone on August 22, 2011.
There must be a stellar vacation-package deal for members of Middle Eastern terrorist groups to vacation in northern Pakistan if they're willing to risk all the drones and repeated deaths.
High-ranking al-Qaeda member Saeed al-Shehri is yet another terrorist who has been "killed" at least twice to date in separate air raids: once as reported by ABC News in December 2009, and yet again this past September, as reported by the Associated Press.
So do these guys really end up dead at some point? Or does the mere announcement of their questionable deaths serve to conveniently remove them from the radar? In at least one other case, it turns out that a supposedly "dead" terrorist is still at large enough to still be included on the FBI's Most Wanted Terrorists list.
Mohammed Ali Hamadi is the Hezbollah terrorist responsible for the 1985 hijacking of TWA Flight 847 during which Navy diver Robert Stethem was tortured, killed and tossed out onto the tarmac. Hamadi still remains on the FBI's Most Wanted Terrorists list despite having been reported killed by a drone in northern Pakistan in 2010.
Does the FBI really care to apprehend this fugitive? Because there have been sightings of him recently reported here in the North of France. And why isn't the agency's sophisticated high-tech composite photograph included on the FBI website? Or better yet, his latest-available photo from 2008, which is markedly different from those the FBI has posted?
A private investigation suggests that Hamadi was operating a vehicle import/export business between Belgium and Lebanon until his "death." His cell phone number from that period is available, should the FBI wish to actually investigate.
What's preventing the FBI from doing its job? Certainly not the extradition treaty between the U.S. and France, which allows for extradition upon executive approval. And apparently, being an FBI Most Wanted fugitive doesn't mean inclusion in the Interpol database. How about fixing that?
And if the FBI no longer cares that Hamadi remains at large, then why keep him on the Most Wanted list? Pick a lane.
When U.S. intelligence isn't busy fake-killing terrorists, it may want to try apprehending them and bringing them to justice. Just a thought.



"The ends do not justify the means" is a really great debate topic inside a philosophy classroom. +1 for #FirstWorldProblems.

What should the US do? Well, thank god we agree Nukes and Napalm are a bit over the top... what else? Invasion? Nope - too costly and doesn't help at all. Do nothing? No for some many reasons.

That article you posting is nothing more then drivel. I wouldn't be surprised if it was from the national enquirer. Emotionally charged propaganda that makes so many wild assumptions and outlandish analogies.




Do me a favor - stop regurgitating media hype and offer an alternative solution. Then we can get the conversation going.
  • 0

Fruits?

Lord Peaches' gut is telling him that the drunken fool, aka Dral, is 100% mafia.

 MVP?

Dral is 100% mafia or I will masteb_ _ _ _ a cow and like it

GOATis?

Vig kill dral he never talks like this when he's not mafia.

 


#22 key2thecup

key2thecup

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,991 posts
  • Joined: 28-November 07

Posted 15 December 2012 - 05:18 PM

from June 2004 to mid-September 2012, drone strikes killed between 2,562 and 3,325 people in Pakistan, of whom 474 to 881 were civilians, including 176 children.

The number of "high-level" targets killed as a percentage of total casualties is extremely low - estimated at just 2%, the study found.



US Drones Are Killing Children, Terrorising Families And Turning Civilians Against America, Report Finds

It’s claimed that drone strikes in Pakistan make America safer, by surgically eliminating terrorists.
But a study published on Tuesday claims that not only are very few key targets killed, but that the attacks have resulted in high civilian casualties – including children - and have greatly increased resentment towards the US.

The report, by Stanford University and New York University, warns that the CIA's drone campaign, which has escalated under Obama, "terrorises men, women and children" in north-west Pakistan "twenty-four hours a day".

The detailed report - which was compiled over nine months using interviews with the local population, including victims of strikes, humanitarian workers and medical professionals – explains that hundreds of civilians have been killed through drone strikes.
It quotes figures from the London-based Bureau of Investigative Journalism (TBIJ), which says that from June 2004 to mid-September 2012, drone strikes killed between 2,562 and 3,325 people in Pakistan, of whom 474 to 881 were civilians, including 176 children.

Some of these children have been killed during Obama's incumbency, according to the TBIJ.
The number of "high-level" targets killed as a percentage of total casualties is extremely low - estimated at just 2%, the study found.

The strikes come from Predator and Reaper drones that fire powerful hellfire missiles and the deaths and injuries they’ve caused have devastated village life in Pakistan, the study says.

For example, children in the affected areas are being taken out of school for a number of reasons, including "the physical, emotional and financial impacts of the [drone] strike," "to compensate for the income lost after the death or injury of a relative," or "due to fear that they would be killed in a drone strike."

Sadaullah Khan, a 15-year-old who lost both legs in a drone strike, told researchers: "I used to go to school… I thought I would become a doctor. After the drone strikes, I stopped going to school."

A local taxi driver described how “whether we are driving a car, or we are working on a farm, or we are sitting at home playing cards – no matter what we are doing we are always thinking the drone will strike us. So we are scared to do anything, no matter what."

What’s more, rescue efforts are hampered by so called "double tap" strikes, the study says, whereby drones are directed to hit target areas twice over.

Interviewees "explained that the secondary strikes have discouraged average civilians from coming to one another’s rescue, and even inhibited the provision of emergency medical assistance from humanitarian workers".

One aid agency reported that it allows a delay of six hours before visiting a reported drone-strike scene.

The psychological impact of drone strikes is also highlighted, with some villagers explaining that they live in constant fear of being caught up in an explosion.

Some are too afraid to meet in groups of more than two, as drones tend to be directed at large gatherings and others reported that they're too scared to attend funerals.

Post-traumatic stress symptoms such as emotional breakdowns, fainting and nightmares were reported among some interviewees.

The strikes are also having a negative effect on villagers' perception of America, too, and may even be bolstering terrorist ranks.
Roughly three in four now consider the US an enemy, an increase from both 2010 and 2011, according to the study.
The authors write: "It is clear from polling and our research team’s interviews that drone strikes breed resentment and discontent toward the US, and there is evidence to suggest that the strikes have aided militant recruitment and motivated terrorist activity."
The study also calls into question how certain drone operators can be that they’re targeting a real threat.

Daniel Klaidman, in Kill Or Capture: The War on Terror and the Soul of the Obama Presidency, writes that according to US authorities, these strikes target "groups of men who bear certain signatures, or defining characteristics associated with terrorist activity, but whose identities aren’t known".

Just what those "defining characteristics" are has never been made public, the study authors say.
The US regards any male of fighting age as a legitimate target, something that may be masking the number of civilian deaths, they add.

Clive Stafford Smith, from UK-based human rights agency Reprieve, said: "This shows that drone strikes go much further than simply killing innocent civilians.

"An entire region is being terrorised by the constant threat of death from the skies. Their way of life is collapsing: kids are too terrified to go to school, adults are afraid to attend weddings, funerals, business meetings, or anything that involves gathering in groups.

"Yet there is no end in sight, and nowhere the ordinary men, women and children of North West Pakistan can go to feel safe. George Bush wanted to create a global ‘War on Terror’ without borders, but it has taken Obama’s drone war to achieve his dream."

The report does not include any references to UK involvement in drone strikes, but the former director of public prosecutions, Lord Macdonald, said recently that there was "compelling evidence" that the secret service listening post GCHQ was providing the US with intelligence about potential drone-strike targets.

http://www.huffingto...just_reloaded=1


Edited by key2thecup, 15 December 2012 - 05:23 PM.

  • 0

Dr. Ron Paul 2016!

Dr. Rand Paul 2016!

INFJ


#23 TOMapleLaughs

TOMapleLaughs

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32,526 posts
  • Joined: 19-September 05

Posted 15 December 2012 - 05:33 PM

That study is an estimate, as true figures have yet to be obtained.

Meanwhile, Obama killed Osama without having to launch two failed invasions on countries that weren't housing him. And he killed him inside an Islamic nuclear country.

Anyone want to tally up 'civillians killed' in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Going to go with Obama over Bush regarding the 'high level target' percentage, overall.
  • 1
Posted Image

#24 Buddhas Hand

Buddhas Hand

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,226 posts
  • Joined: 19-December 11

Posted 15 December 2012 - 05:37 PM

"The ends do not justify the means" is a really great debate topic inside a philosophy classroom. +1 for #FirstWorldProblems.

What should the US do? Well, thank god we agree Nukes and Napalm are a bit over the top... what else? Invasion? Nope - too costly and doesn't help at all. Do nothing? No for some many reasons.

That article you posting is nothing more then drivel. I wouldn't be surprised if it was from the national enquirer. Emotionally charged propaganda that makes so many wild assumptions and outlandish analogies.




Do me a favor - stop regurgitating media hype and offer an alternative solution. Then we can get the conversation going.

"The ends do not justify the means" is a really great debate topic inside a philosophy classroom. +1 for #FirstWorldProblems.

What should the US do? Well, thank god we agree Nukes and Napalm are a bit over the top... what else? Invasion? Nope - too costly and doesn't help at all. Do nothing? No for some many reasons.

That article you posting is nothing more then drivel. I wouldn't be surprised if it was from the national enquirer. Emotionally charged propaganda that makes so many wild assumptions and outlandish analogies.




Do me a favor - stop regurgitating media hype and offer an alternative solution. Then we can get the conversation going.



You go ahead and ignore the facts and call them drivel .

You do not want your family killed as "collateral damage ", and yet you do not care when the happens to others .You would be the first to whine and complain if some one killed your loved one's in such a way .

I do not want to have a conversation with a person who refuses to use reason and logic , and who seems to find a way to justify the killing of innocent women and children.

Edited by The Ratiocinator, 15 December 2012 - 05:39 PM.

  • 1

The Real war is not between the east and the west. The real war is between intelligent and stupid people.

Marjane Satrapi

tony-abbott-and-stephen-harper-custom-da

That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all the lessons that history has to teach.

Aldous Huxley.


#25 Buddhas Hand

Buddhas Hand

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,226 posts
  • Joined: 19-December 11

Posted 15 December 2012 - 05:57 PM

I'm pretty sure your math is wrong here.... Just because they aren't high lvl targets doesn't mean they are innocent....


I am pretty sure my math is right

Predator Drone Strikes: 50 Civilians Are Killed For Every 1 Terrorist, and the CIA Only Wants to Up Drone Warfare

Posted Image{C}
Predator Drone Strikes 50 Civilians Are Killed For Every 1 Terrorist and the CIA Only Wants to Up Drone Warfare{C}
{C}{C}

While the 2012 presidential election racket focuses on gaffes, Romney's binders, and Big Bird, the CIA and the Pentagon are currently busy finding ways to increase their military power and influence around the globe. According to the Washington Post, CIA Director David Petraeus wants an increased drone fleet to "bolster the agency’s ability to sustain its campaigns of lethal strikes in Pakistan and Yemen and enable it, if directed, to shift aircraft to emerging Al-Qaeda threats in North Africa or other trouble spots."
And with the final presidential debate on Monday focusing on foreign policy, the issue of drone strikes could not be more prescient. President Obama and former Governor Romney both carefully tiptoed around discussing anything of real substance concerning domestic issues and the economy, and will both look to outhawk each other next week concerning the use of unmanned armed drones overseas — if it is even discussed at all.
It's easy to see why they might want to avoid the subject. The use of drone strikes have increased exponentially under the Obama administration, becoming a signature aspect of his incredibly aggressive and reckless foreign policy. And while the president and his advisers defend both their supposed legality and precision while simultaneously bragging when convenient and denying when pressured that the drone program even exists, a closer look at the use of Predator drones tells a very different story.
Despite claims from the administration that drone strikes have killed very few civilians, multiple independent reports confirm that Obama is severely downplaying the wreckage that these drone strikes inflict. It is ultimately impossible to get exact numbers, but a new study from Columbia Law School’s Human Rights Institute finds that the number of Pakistani civilians killed in drone strikes are “significantly and consistently underestimated” by tracking organizations which are trying to take the place of government estimates on casualties.
There are estimates as high as 98% of drone strike casualties being civilians (50 for every one "suspected terrorist"). The Bureau of Investigative Journalism issued a report detailing how the CIA is deliberately targeting those who show up after the sight of an attack, rescuers, and mourners at funerals as a part of a "double-tap" strategy eerily reminiscient of methods used by terrorist groups like Hamas.
These numbers and reports alone should cast much doubt on the effectiveness at protecting the U.S. and combating terrorism that the Obama admnistration uses as justification for drone strikes. If a drone kills an actual terrorist but leaves multiple, sometimes dozens, of innocent civilians vaporized as well, this creates a brand new set of enemies and blowback. According to Jeremy Scahill’s reporting at The Nation, U.S. drone strikes in Yemen are the primary source for Al-Qaeda’s presence in the Arabian Peninsula. Obama’s “signature strikes” — where targets are hit for displaying “suspicious behavior” and which Petraeus also wants to expand — are backfiring and can only boomerang back to us.
While the CIA claims that the drone program operates "under a framework of legal and close government oversight," multiple legal experts are challenging the legality of the drone program under both American and international law. But much like how the Obama administration is blocking any challenges to the provisions in the NDAA that essentially nullify habeus corpus and Posse Comitatus, any lawsuit or inquiry into the drone program has been met with staunch opposition — especially concerning the targeted assassinations by drones of Anwar Al-Awlaki and his 16-year old son, both U.S. citizens.
The Obama-CIA drone program is the perfect example of government secrecy, lawlessness, and the inevitable next step in the U.S. government's long tradition of claiming the right to intervene military anywhere and everywhere it pleases. Government programs, whether they be welfare transfer payments or weapons contracts, like cancer, grow for growth's sake.
Many Americans may display indifference to the use of drones and the CIA's desire to expand the program. After all, these strikes are done thousands of miles away, and our noble public servants would never mislead us or fearmonger about a supposed foreign threat. Besides, it is far better to have CIA agents in Virginia or Nevada flying weaponized robots by remote control than to send in thousands of Marines, right?
The problem with this, of course, is twofold. First, the basic justification for the use of drones is the threat of terrorism. But terrorism is simply a predictable consequence of an interventionist foreign policy, the propping up of puppet dictators, and the embrace of empire that began after World War II (at least). The use of drones simply compounds this problem, creating more potential terrorists for every one that is killed.
Secondly, foreign and domestic policy are incredibly intertwined, and empires always eventually turn inward. During the occupation of the Philippines, the U.S. government experimented with drug prohibition and torture, programs that eventually became standard domestically. Police are now increasingly resembling, in both attire, attitude, and tactics, their overseas counterparts in Baghdad and Kandahar. Given that in just a few years, drones are set to police American skies, how long will they remained unarmed?
This is why the the drone program, and the CIA's desire to expand it, are so troubling. More than anything, the issue of whether the President, in a supposedly free society and a constitutional republic, should have this type of power at his fingertips should be front and center.
But since the only critique of Obama's foreign policy that Romney offers is that it isn't aggressive enough, the American people will sadly once again be deprived of a debate on the most substantive issues facing the future of what's left of our republic
  • 0

The Real war is not between the east and the west. The real war is between intelligent and stupid people.

Marjane Satrapi

tony-abbott-and-stephen-harper-custom-da

That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all the lessons that history has to teach.

Aldous Huxley.


#26 Dral

Dral

    Puts the Dr in Drunk

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,631 posts
  • Joined: 30-July 12

Posted 15 December 2012 - 07:03 PM

You go ahead and ignore the facts and call them drivel .

You do not want your family killed as "collateral damage ", and yet you do not care when the happens to others .You would be the first to whine and complain if some one killed your loved one's in such a way .

I do not want to have a conversation with a person who refuses to use reason and logic , and who seems to find a way to justify the killing of innocent women and children.


LoL - are you trolling me?
  • 0

Fruits?

Lord Peaches' gut is telling him that the drunken fool, aka Dral, is 100% mafia.

 MVP?

Dral is 100% mafia or I will masteb_ _ _ _ a cow and like it

GOATis?

Vig kill dral he never talks like this when he's not mafia.

 


#27 Edler0023

Edler0023

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,024 posts
  • Joined: 03-August 10

Posted 16 December 2012 - 12:39 AM

This is a huge mess. If Pakistan had someone else in power other then Zardari, there is no question there would be violent retaliation by the government. (Imagine if Musharraf was in power, these drones would be shot down) I place blame on the current government of Pakistan as well - Zardari, the most corrupt and most useless politician in the history of politicians/leaders.


Droning the tribal areas seems pointless to me, but that's because I have an idea about the kind of people that have lived in that area for thousands of years. These Pashtuns are known as a 'warrior race', the British at their peak couldn't deal with them - it's said that more British soldiers died in Waziristan in comparison to the other parts of British India. Bombing their villages and firing at their women and children will not solve this conflict, these guys will not sit back.

How does the US determine who is a militant and who is not? These people that they're droning, the Pashtuns in Waziristan - every single Pashtun in the tribal area will be armed, there is no debate around that, it's a fact especially if you are familiar with the area.

These drones generate more anti-Americanism, more anger, more hatred, and more violence. And violence against who? Against people IN Pakistan, not in the US. Reason? The Pakistani Army is also in the tribal areas, on the ground. It makes it seem like the US drones and Pak army are working as one, "mercenary army of the US" - huge issue.

Elections in Pakistan are around the corner, if Imran Khan wins, droning is done. He is openly anti-drone, and incredibly familiar with the tribal regions being a Pashtun himself. He has stated that his first step if he wins is to disengage from America's war, take $0 in aid and put an end to drone strikes. Let's see what happens.

Edited by Edler0023, 16 December 2012 - 12:41 AM.

  • 0

#28 Edler0023

Edler0023

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,024 posts
  • Joined: 03-August 10

Posted 16 December 2012 - 12:51 AM

There's a NYU student Josh Begley who tweets every reported US drone strike since 2002 - the trend he has found is known as the 'double tap'. I know what that is. Anyone here know though?
  • 0

#29 Edler0023

Edler0023

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,024 posts
  • Joined: 03-August 10

Posted 16 December 2012 - 01:09 AM

So this is Obama's war now?

Or is the title indicating that if someone else was in charge, they wouldn't use Drones... and instead would have more American troops on the ground fighting... and those troops would never kill civilians?

The biggest LoL of this article was these strikes are prevent militants and the government from making deals. Not likely - if anything the americans have helped in this regard.



Less of two evils right here.



Obama authorized 300 drone strikes during his first 4 years in office - six times the number during the Bush admin. The way I see it, it is easier now then ever before for militants to recruit men. You have a family, they or one of them die, you're left behind - want revenge? Come join us.
  • 0

#30 Edler0023

Edler0023

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,024 posts
  • Joined: 03-August 10

Posted 16 December 2012 - 01:12 AM

"If he runs, he's VC. If he doesn't run, he's a well-disciplined VC. Hahaha. War is hell." - Full Metal Jacket


Using drones to kill terrorists strategically is brilliant, imo. It eliminates home team casualties, doesn't let 'feelings' and second-guessing get in the way, and makes the overall sensation of the kill be as it would be in a video game.

The downside is that in the future, terrorists aren't going away anytime soon and they may be using drones on us. Meh. That's just a reason to exterminate as many of those ???? as we can now.

Referring to my Full Metal Jacket quote, the difference between civillian and terrorist in that region during a time of war is almost nil. The reason no accurate count of civillians killed can be obtained is because a civilian is just another terrorist, current or future. At least according to those doing all the killing with drones.

In any case, the drones strikes are supported by Pakistan. So why should we have a problem with them if they don't?


Not by the people. We should have a problem with it if its actually killing a high number of civilians and in turn helping the recruitment of more militants.
  • 1




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Canucks.com is the official Web site of The Vancouver Canucks. The Vancouver Canucks and Canucks.com are trademarks of The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership.  NHL and the word mark and image of the Stanley Cup are registered trademarks and the NHL Shield and NHL Conference logos are trademarks of the National Hockey League. All NHL logos and marks and NHL team logos and marks as well as all other proprietary materials depicted herein are the property of the NHL and the respective NHL teams and may not be reproduced without the prior written consent of NHL Enterprises, L.P.  Copyright © 2009 The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership and the National Hockey League.  All Rights Reserved.